It’s probably fair to say that we’re in the midst of a full-blown media frenzy over the (admittedly worrisome) spread of the latest Ebola virus. Yet so far this year roughly 242 times as many people have died from traffic collisions—and I haven’t yet heard anyone call for banning cars, making driving illegal, or quarantining motorists.

It’s almost as if we’re prone to focus on—and even overreact to—new and near-term problems and not very good at dealing with slower-moving “constant” threats even if they are wildly more dangerous. There’s a lesson here for our wholly inadequate response to climate change, though it’s not a case I can make with nearly as much alacrity as Jon Stewart.

Obviously we should take different approaches to solving these problems, but I do think a little perspective is in order. Over the last decade traffic collisions have claimed roughly 12.4 million lives. It would be nice to see a proportional level of recognition by national and international leaders.

Yes I agree, perspective is in order. Unfortunately traffic collisions like several other deadly conditions are culturally acceptable risks and each requires a different approach.

I agree with you and Dr. Arias, “A million tragedies happen every day; what a wonderful world it would be if we all responded to those events with the same urgency and dedication with which the people of the United States responded to the tragedy of September 11.” Dr. Oscar Arias, Nobel Peace Prize winner and former President of Costa Rica, 3/3/02.

I don’t agree that comparing automobile deaths to Ebola deaths makes your point. I think it would help to remind people of the variety of crises we routinely deem acceptable. The point would be that the Ebola crisis cannot be accepted without grave consequences for everyone.

To put it another way we can afford to ignore some major causes of death (ex. starvation, war) because they affect “others” but we can’t ignore loose radiation (Fukishima) or poisons in our ecosystems because we are all impacted. Given national or local political boundaries some major killers (cars and guns) can be reduced or eliminated but attaining poison-free and virus free lives requires long-term boundary-less cooperation and commitments we tragically lack.

I appreciate the subtitle “How we systematically misunderstand risk.” Might be great grist for a series, in which the next graph could compare the risks of ISIS versus the U.S. military. We could begin with civilian* deaths for a particular focus, later we can move on to how many cities, power and water supplies have been destroyed and peoples displaced.

* In the interest of transparency, “civilian” will include any individual resisting illegal occupation.

Well, looking for some data I’ve found that in Liberia there are less cars than in almost every country in the world (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_vehicles_per_capita ). So I expect the car fatalities to be less; for example, while US own 809 cars every 1000 people and Liberia just 3, I think that fatalities due to car accident in Liberia should be in the order of 1/269 compared to US.
Seen in another way, there shouldn’t be lots of car accidents in a country with almost no cars, especially when an emergency is ongoing.

What this ignores of course is the difference between voluntary and involuntary risk, yet it is interesting how different our perception or acceptance of risk can be depending upon whether it is our choice or not. And it is definitely true that big scary things, or the unknown, grab our attention more easily than the mundane press of things we face daily that ultimately are more likely take us down. Human nature I guess.

The notion in the subtitle is definitely worth further exploration and discussion.

Ebola deaths disproportionately affect the poor in undeveloped countries, and communicable diseases are among the top killers in Sierra Leone, Liberia, and Guinea (Influenza/pneumonia, tuberculosis, HIV, diarrheal illnesses), and are not among the top killers in more developed nations. The point you make about auto deaths appears rather classist in light of this, where many in those regions who are dying don’t have access to cars.

Couple of quick points. First, traffic fatalities are far more prevalent in lower income countries than in rich countries. Second, the audience for this blog is the Pacific Northwest and, to a lesser degree, North America. In this piece, I’m trying to make a point about the way in which North Americans evaluate the relative risks of the dangers they confront. Certainly the residents of a several West African countries should be making a different calculation.

The article and subsequent comments all raise interesting points. However, the real fears about Ebola are: 1) it appears to have nearly a 90% fatality rate for those who come in contact with it, and 2) the fact that 2 out of 75+ care givers have come down with it in a Texas hospital suggests that it may be easier to contract than previously thought. And while most of us in the USA will drive or ride a car regularly, no where near 90% of us who come in contact with a car will die because of that contact. Watching the methods the Doctors without Borders are using in Africa to keep from contracting the disease while they treat patients makes it very clear this is a dangerous disease mostly because of the “splatter” of bodily fluids it causes in many patients who become ill. I would argue that your argument (cars & Ebola) resorts to the “Lies, damned lies, and statistics” method of argument. Correlation does not equate to causation, and vice versa.

Anyway, I think this is the rub. You write, “And while most of us in the USA will drive or ride a car regularly, no where near 90% of us who come in contact with a car will die because of that contact.” That’s fair enough, but that’s also my point: almost no one in North America (or in the vast majority of the world) is likely to come into contact with Ebola. By contrast, almost everyone comes into contact with cars multiple times a day — and they kill.

Typo alert: As I was sharing this to FB, I noticed typo in first line. Full-blow -> full-blown. Other than that, I agree with main thrust of piece, which is why I shared. Commenters have raised a few valid caveats, but I think main thrust is pretty solid & needs to be much better understood in our collective consciousness. Thanks for that.

Stay up to date on the Northwest's most important sustainability issues.

Research Areas

Founded in 1993, Sightline Institute is committed to making the Northwest a global model of sustainability, with strong communities, a green economy, and a healthy environment. We work to promote smart policy ideas and monitor the region's progress towards sustainability.